IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar.

Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer.
If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email.
NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Must be why my grandmother had plastic covers on all her upholstered furniture!!!

Along that line, wouldn't most of the sanitary and protective augments be covered (pun intended) by materials not necessarily visually occlusive?

I'm visualizing a saran wrap diaper or loin cloth with perspiration fogging up the film because it doesn't breath. Oh the fungal infections that would result from that get up!! But it would keep the germs off the furniture.

Sitting down on a public park bench while nude would carry a greater risk of infection. Public nudity as such should not be criminalized, only when it becomes a public danger or some form of harassment should it be illegal. Being forced to rub against clothed people while traveling on crowded public transportation as bad enough.

As the arguments you presented seem to have been demolished repeatedly... I'll simply say that I am fully in favor of legalization. Very much against having it be required. Clothes are very useful tools for many reasons. Cleanliness while nude and using public resources... that's a slightly different issue. Of course, I would tend to compare that more to dog owners cleaning up after their pets or not than nudity.

Yes, but these sometimes don't fit the sanitary condition and never fit the protective condition.

Just like the uncomfortable objection before, other concealing fabrics can be of little sanitary or protective use but might be worn for simply the need of that concealing aspect.

Originally Posted by Checkmite

No, because of the trapping moisture part.

Which wouldn't be worse in the hotter whether?

You do know that perforations and vents can help with "the trapping moisture part" just as they do in other less transparent materials that trap moister as well.

Originally Posted by Checkmite

These things capture the heat, dirt, and moisture whilst being worn. Anyone who has ever tried to wear a poncho on a warm summer day is familiar with this effect: the air inside gets hot and sticky, and the inner surface becomes wet with condensation and sweat (which carries dirt and oils from the skin and smears them on the inside of the poncho). Now imagine a perfectly clear poncho: all the sweat and dirt and condensation is visible as a translucent coating, except for where your wet, sweaty, hairy skin is pressed directly against the material.

No need to imagine I work in clean room, you should see the salt lines on my shirt after work and while the clean room suits aren't transparent you can still see when sweat has plastered it to someone's skin . So is your complaint just that you don't want to see what you are excreting into your cloths right know.

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Yes but people are able to choose to patronize strip clubs when they want to go to them, and avoid them when they don't want to go to them. Forcing people to have to become reverse-stripping patrons by traveling about in public amounts more to extortion than providing a service.

No one said anything about forcing people to do anything. You can't extort people with something they don't care about and giving people what they want to pay for is providing them a service.

__________________"Not a seat but a springboard” (1942 Winston Churchill) "As he who, seeking asses, found a kingdom" (1671 Milton "Paradise Regained")"for it seem'd A void was made in nature, all her bonds Crack'd; and I saw the flaring atom-streams And torrents of her myriad universe, Ruining along the illimitable inane, Fly on to clash together again, and make Another and another frame of things For ever." (1868 Tennyson "Lucretius")

I'm visualizing a saran wrap diaper or loin cloth with perspiration fogging up the film because it doesn't breath. Oh the fungal infections that would result from that get up!! But it would keep the germs off the furniture.

I'm glad to stimulate your imagination as well as keep the germs (at least some of them) off the furniture.

__________________"Not a seat but a springboard” (1942 Winston Churchill) "As he who, seeking asses, found a kingdom" (1671 Milton "Paradise Regained")"for it seem'd A void was made in nature, all her bonds Crack'd; and I saw the flaring atom-streams And torrents of her myriad universe, Ruining along the illimitable inane, Fly on to clash together again, and make Another and another frame of things For ever." (1868 Tennyson "Lucretius")

There's no point getting all stressed out about a statistically improbable event. If someone's going to sexually assault you, statistically there's about an 80-90% chance you know them, so focusing efforts on protecting yourself against strangers is totally illogical.

Just like the uncomfortable objection before, other concealing fabrics can be of little sanitary or protective use but might be worn for simply the need of that concealing aspect.

Yes, but at least it does fulfil that aspect. The non-occlusive "garment" would fulfil no purpose at all.

Originally Posted by The Man

Which wouldn't be worse in the hotter whether?

Trapping moisture is just plain bad, either in hot or cold weather. In hot weather, it raises the ambient humidity next to the skin to an uncomfortable level and leads to profuse sweating; in cold weather, the moisture condenses on the fabric and is then chilled by conduction, which then chills the wearer by touch.

Originally Posted by The Man

You do know that perforations and vents can help with "the trapping moisture part" just as they do in other less transparent materials that trap moister as well.

In theory. but those with practical experience know for a fact that "vents" in clothing designed for this purpose are in reality useless gimmicks; the hot, humid air can't actually get out unless fresh air is able to get in from elsewhere to replace it, and the mere existence of openings for this purpose is insufficient - something has to cause the air to start moving - and keep moving - in order for this displacement to occur. Body movement alone doesn't do it; inside-outside temperature difference isn't enough either.

Originally Posted by The Man

No need to imagine I work in clean room, you should see the salt lines on my shirt after work and while the clean room suits aren't transparent you can still see when sweat has plastered it to someone's skin . So is your complaint just that you don't want to see what you are excreting into your cloths right know.

I don't want to see it, I don't want others to see it, and I don't want to see it on others.

In some ways, the "non-occlusive garment" - let's just be honest and call it clear plastic, because that's the only thing we could possibly be referring to - would be even worse than just plain nudity. One of the concerns mentioned above by others - leaving (relatively) invisible or barely-visible smears of possibly disease-contaminated body fluids/substances here and there all over the place - the clear plastic garment might "catch" these, but at the cost of concentrating them in one place and putting them on proud public display. Yeah, it would be nasty. That's the part I was referring to when I said "appetite-affectiing".

Originally Posted by The Man

No one said anything about forcing people to do anything. You can't extort people with something they don't care about and giving people what they want to pay for is providing them a service.

It isn't if your presence is the sole creator of the want. A tire-shop owner throwing tacks into the street near his business is in a like manner "providing a service" when he changes or repairs his victims' tires for a fee. Except they wouldn't need their tires fixed or replaced at all if it weren't for the tacks; and your victims wouldn't be needing you to cover up enough to pay you to do it if you weren't showing up naked in a place where they couldn't avoid having to interact with you.

I don't want to see most people naked. In my experience the ones who like to be naked most are the ones I want to see naked least.

__________________"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

I don't want to see most people naked. In my experience the ones who like to be naked most are the ones I want to see naked least.

It doesn't matter what you want, it matters what is right (ethically), yes?

__________________"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." - Thomas Paine
"We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Mikhail Bakunin

How do you draw the line? If it's OK to say you have to cover these 10 square inches then how is it not OK to say you have to wear a Burka?

Covering those particular 10 square inches doesn't restrict the kind of normal social interaction that generally occurs in public or prevent identification of an individual in the way that wearing a full face and body covering deliberately designed to entirely hide the person does.

Covering those particular 10 square inches doesn't restrict the kind of normal social interaction that generally occurs in public or prevent identification of an individual in the way that wearing a full face and body covering deliberately designed to entirely hide the person does.

Okay, so everything but the face needs to be covered while in public?

__________________"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." - Thomas Paine
"We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Mikhail Bakunin

Covering those particular 10 square inches doesn't restrict the kind of normal social interaction or prevent identification of an individual in the way that wearing a full face and body covering deliberately designed to entirely hide the person does.

A very good answer.
So let's pull it back from a burka to requiring that everything but the hands and face be covered.

Merton - beat me to it.

Just as a side note I'm reminded of a Heinlein story from the 1950's were a character returning to Earth after many years was shocked because the women were not wearing hats.

No and that's not what I'm saying, but the question asked was specifically about the Burqua which is going to the opposite extreme than the OP is different and these are factors that are particually applicable to that garment.

In any society there is a balance between what the individual may find comfortable, desirable and/or practical and what the wider society finds acceptable but they weren't as applicable to the question.

No and that's not what I'm saying, but the question asked was specifically about the Burqua which is going to the opposite extreme than the OP is different and these are factors that are particually applicable to that garment.

Fair enough.

Quote:

In any society there is a balance between what the individual may find comfortable, desirable and/or practical and what the wider society finds acceptable but they weren't as applicable to the question.

Where do you think this balance ought to lie?

__________________"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." - Thomas Paine
"We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Mikhail Bakunin

Me personally? I'm pretty much happy for people to wear whatever the hell they like. There's a hygiene argument for minimum coverage of the groin and rectum and I think that coverage of the face is antisocial under most circumstances and can isolate the wearer so personally I'm against that. I have no problem with businesses setting dress codes as they feel is appropriate.

Other than that I think that people should dress as they feel comfortable and as is practical for their situation and activities.

Wouldn't it be easier to tie the towel around your waist rather than have to carry it? Oh wait, then it's clothing. And that's bad because...

I personally don't have a problem with 'optimists'. They have a camp near here. I just find a lot of the arguments for nudity to be spacious. Clothing is practical almost all of the time regardless of social pressures. So I tend to wear clothing. Sometimes it's less than people would like...

__________________Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

Primitive people live is groups where everyone knows everyone else. They know if there are any child molesters or rapists and can take actions to keep themselves safe. But in larger societies you don't know everyone and it presents more risk.

Oh, so it's fine to insist we all be fine with people wandering around with the tackle out, but the second someone doesn't agree with your idea of how often to wash said tackle you're ok with issuing orders. Hypocritical bigot.

__________________"The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline

Covering those particular 10 square inches doesn't restrict the kind of normal social interaction that generally occurs in public or prevent identification of an individual in the way that wearing a full face and body covering deliberately designed to entirely hide the person does.

That's fine, so tell me why women should not all be compelled to wear pink hats.

__________________Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I don't like the fact that we mandate wearing clothes, especially in the summer months. In Columbus, Ohio, it is legal to go without shirts whether you are male or female, but females rarely do so, except at one particular festival. I don't really want to see most people's naked bodies, but I don't really want to see their bodies in clothes that are too small for their size either. I generally just don't like a lot of people, so whether they have on clothes or not makes no difference.

I would like to be able to walk around the house naked with the windows open and not worry about the neighbors being offended. I do walk around half naked a lot and usually cover my top with my arm when facing a window without blinds. I feel that is unnecessary though. I only do it because I'm worried I will offend some mom whose 10 year old son happened to be walking by.

If legal, I would probably not go nude, but I wouldn't wear many clothes in the summer, and I surely wouldn't care whether certain things could be seen through the clothes.

There are few practical arguments for clothing. Sure, I don't really trust someone else to wipe properly, so sitting on a common seat would be iffy. But I would just carry something I always sat on, kind of like exotic dancers in Canada do. I already use public toilets, and that is just as scary. I touch handles that everyone else touches and drink out of questionable glasses at bars and restaurants.

I feel that forced covering of certain parts is just a convention. similar to swear words. It's a moral convention, not practical. I'm not offended by the way someone naturally looks. I don't ask people to cover their ugly haircuts or dye jobs, so why should I ask people to be uncomfortable wearing clothing if they don't want to?

__________________"A woman who aborts a baby because she was raped is as bad as the rapist." -bigfig

Contrary to what most people say, the most dangerous animal in the world is not the lion or the tiger or even the elephant. It's a shark riding on an elephant's back, just trampling and eating everything they see.
- Jack Handey

That's fine, so tell me why women should not all be compelled to wear pink hats.

Tell me why they should? Personally I think individual freedom should be paramount so far as it does not impinge on the rights of others. The question that the answer you quoted was to was not about what should be done but what was different about two situations.

This is the third question along these lines I've been asked and I feel like I'm being assumed to hold a position that I don't here. I was addressing a single specific question about why (as I interpreted it) legally enforcing certain (fairly universal) minimum clothing requirements was at heart different to enforcing a particularly extreme example. Since compulsion and social expectations could be applied to both I tried to think of some examples specific to the question I was asked, it was not an exhaustive list and was not intended to be.

Yes, but at least it does fulfil that aspect. The non-occlusive "garment" would fulfil no purpose at all.

People often sacrifice sanitary and protective effectiveness of garments for comfort and appearance. The non-occlusive "garment" would be no different.

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Trapping moisture is just plain bad, either in hot or cold weather. In hot weather, it raises the ambient humidity next to the skin to an uncomfortable level and leads to profuse sweating; in cold weather, the moisture condenses on the fabric and is then chilled by conduction, which then chills the wearer by touch.

In theory. but those with practical experience know for a fact that "vents" in clothing designed for this purpose are in reality useless gimmicks; the hot, humid air can't actually get out unless fresh air is able to get in from elsewhere to replace it, and the mere existence of openings for this purpose is insufficient - something has to cause the air to start moving - and keep moving - in order for this displacement to occur. Body movement alone doesn't do it; inside-outside temperature difference isn't enough either.

I don't want to see it, I don't want others to see it, and I don't want to see it on others.

In some ways, the "non-occlusive garment" - let's just be honest and call it clear plastic, because that's the only thing we could possibly be referring to - would be even worse than just plain nudity. One of the concerns mentioned above by others - leaving (relatively) invisible or barely-visible smears of possibly disease-contaminated body fluids/substances here and there all over the place - the clear plastic garment might "catch" these, but at the cost of concentrating them in one place and putting them on proud public display. Yeah, it would be nasty. That's the part I was referring to when I said "appetite-affectiing".

Let's cut to the chase. It basically comes down to protection. The sanitary concern of clothing being just one aspect of that. Protecting one from the contaminants in some environment or (as in the case of the clean room) protecting a clean environment from the contaminates that come from and off us all the time. Protection has costs, uncomfortably being one of them and trapping moisture being a particular one in various cases of protective equipment. Anyone who wears personal protective equipment on a regular basis can tell you this. Again people regularly sacrifice those various aspects of protection to one degree or the other for other aspects like comfort and appearance. As far as plastic goes, clear or not, it helps keep the outside contaminates off you and your contaminates out of the surrounding environment, as well as preventing some abrasive contacts. Which is why it is often used in personal protective equipment, so it is specifically better than nude for the very aspects remarked for which it is currently widely used.

Your compliant still just comes down to that you just don't what to see it. A fair compliant as far as I'm concerned and there is no need to try to make it out to be anything more than just that.

Originally Posted by Checkmite

It isn't if your presence is the sole creator of the want. A tire-shop owner throwing tacks into the street near his business is in a like manner "providing a service" when he changes or repairs his victims' tires for a fee. Except they wouldn't need their tires fixed or replaced at all if it weren't for the tacks; and your victims wouldn't be needing you to cover up enough to pay you to do it if you weren't showing up naked in a place where they couldn't avoid having to interact with you.

They wouldn't have to interact with me, heck, they wouldn't even have to take notice of me and in your "tack" analogy the tire-shop owner is deliberately damaging property making it a poor analogy.

__________________"Not a seat but a springboard” (1942 Winston Churchill) "As he who, seeking asses, found a kingdom" (1671 Milton "Paradise Regained")"for it seem'd A void was made in nature, all her bonds Crack'd; and I saw the flaring atom-streams And torrents of her myriad universe, Ruining along the illimitable inane, Fly on to clash together again, and make Another and another frame of things For ever." (1868 Tennyson "Lucretius")

__________________"Not a seat but a springboard” (1942 Winston Churchill) "As he who, seeking asses, found a kingdom" (1671 Milton "Paradise Regained")"for it seem'd A void was made in nature, all her bonds Crack'd; and I saw the flaring atom-streams And torrents of her myriad universe, Ruining along the illimitable inane, Fly on to clash together again, and make Another and another frame of things For ever." (1868 Tennyson "Lucretius")

Tell me why they should? Personally I think individual freedom should be paramount so far as it does not impinge on the rights of others. The question that the answer you quoted was to was not about what should be done but what was different about two situations.

This is the third question along these lines I've been asked and I feel like I'm being assumed to hold a position that I don't here. I was addressing a single specific question about why (as I interpreted it) legally enforcing certain (fairly universal) minimum clothing requirements was at heart different to enforcing a particularly extreme example. Since compulsion and social expectations could be applied to both I tried to think of some examples specific to the question I was asked, it was not an exhaustive list and was not intended to be.

Maybe your problem was in expression. You excluded the burka because it would "restrict the kind of normal social interaction that generally occurs in public or prevent identification of an individual..." and if that's the criterion, then you have not gone far to explain a silly clothing code that meets it. Of course we can always argue different sides of the slippery slope here, that minimal requirements make sense but on the other hand, the minima are arguable. My point is that we have actual long standing examples of places in which dress codes do not exist, and we could just look at how they work instead of arguing abstracts. You can walk around naked in Vermont, but most of us have figured out how we would prefer to appear in public, and do so without incident.

__________________Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

The hands and face are where you can find the highest concentration of microorganisms on most humans. The bottom is much cleaner. So your couches are much safer from germs when a nude person sits on them than when you rearrange the pillows.

But that may be due to us wearing pants more often than gloves and full face masks.